Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Cinceita Private Ltd. on 19 February, 1982

Bandekar Brothers Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 February, 2026

31. We have given a thoughtful consideration to catena of judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant company and found them distinguishable greatly hence inapplicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case. We say so because, in 'CIT Vs Cinceita (P) Ltd.' (supra) the case was that the assessee leased entire floor of a standalone building and the expenditure was incurred in drawing up & registration of valid lease deed. The expenditure so incurred was treated as legal expenditure thus held as 'revenue'.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Richardson Hindustan Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1987

In the case of CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1932] 137 ITR 652 (Bom), the period of lease was 20 years with right of renewal and the expenditure involved was registration fee and stamp duty. In all these cases, he pointed out, the court took the view that taking premises on lease for different periods ranging from five to twenty years did not amount to acquisition of a capital asset not an advantage of enduring nature. He contended that the expenditure incurred on the above two items, therefore, is allowable as deduction.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 19 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

M/S R. S. Shetye & Bros,Panaji vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 February, 2026

31. We have given a thoughtful consideration to catena of judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant company and found them distinguishable greatly hence inapplicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case. We say so because, in 'CIT Vs Cinceita (P) Ltd.' (supra) the case was that the assessee leased entire floor of a standalone building and the expenditure was incurred in drawing up & registration of valid lease deed. The expenditure so incurred was treated as legal expenditure thus held as 'revenue'.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another vs M/S R.K. Civil Construction Co. Pvt. ... on 30 April, 2014

We agree with the view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Gopal Associates reported in 2010 326 ITR page 413 and the view taken by the Gujrat High Court in the case of Gujrat Machinery Mft Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries, Madras (P) Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Cinceita P. Ltd (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Benetton India Pvt. Ltd on 4 April, 2024

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2024 at 20:50:08 down by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652 and disagreed with the decision of the Karnataka High Court. It was held that irrespective of whether the incidental expenditure is incurred in or in connection with or related to capital expenditure the same has to be treated as revenue expenditure.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Sri Krishna Tiles And Potteries Madras ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 March, 1988

In CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652, the Bombay High Court has taken the view that the expenditure incurred in connection with a lease in the form of payment of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fees paid to the solicitors would be allowable expenditure For the reasons given therein, we hold in the present case also that the amount of Rs. 30,274 was liable to be treated as deductible expenditure.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 12 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

I.B.M. World Trade Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 December, 1988

In view of this court's decision in Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 516, in which, following the earlier decisions in CIT v. Hanftst Pharmaceutical Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 877, CIT v. Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42 and CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652, this court held that the period of lease was not of much relevance and that the expenditure incurred for acquiring premises on lease was allowable as a business deduction, we hold that the amounts advanced by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring the factory on lease is an advance for the purpose of the assessee's business.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next